PDA

View Full Version : Teenage Boy Responsible for California Fires


harloo
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:14 PM
I'm taking a road trip to So. Cal with my belt. I'm planning to do a drive by ass whipping. :fiery:



Boy confesses to starting California fire

2 hours, 12 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A boy playing with matches has confessed to starting a wildfire that destroyed 63 structures near Los Angeles, officials said on Tuesday.

The unidentified youngster, believed to be a preteen, was questioned by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department investigators on October 22, a day after the Buckweed fire started rampaging across 38,000 acres in the Santa Clarita area, 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.


The boy "admitted that he had been playing with matches," said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore.


It was initially believed that downed power lines had started the fire.
The boy was sent home after confessing, and the District Attorney's office will consider whether to press charges.


The Buckweed fire was one of about two-dozen conflagrations that ravaged southern California last week, destroying 2,300 buildings, according to the California Office of Emergency Services. The fires have been responsible for 12 deaths and 78 injuries.


Arson is being blamed for a blaze that has destroyed 15 homes in Orange County, south of Los Angeles, and a reward of $250,000 has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever started the fire.

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:27 PM
Well, if this is true, he should be charged with murder if this fire actually killed anyone. He should get a little bit of leniency for confessing, but still...

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:27 PM
Press charges? On a preteen? Absurd. The same government that doesn't think he's mentally mature enough to have consensual sex think he's mature enough to take responsibility for arson?

The boy should be punished, but not with criminal charges.

Mateo Mathieu
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:34 PM
Press charges? On a preteen? Absurd. The same government that doesn't think he's mentally mature enough to have consensual sex think he's mature enough to take responsibility for arson?

The boy should be punished, but not with criminal charges.
You think all of those victims are OK with him for not being charged with a criminal offence? No.

Scotso
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:45 PM
Press charges? On a preteen? Absurd. The same government that doesn't think he's mentally mature enough to have consensual sex think he's mature enough to take responsibility for arson?

The boy should be punished, but not with criminal charges.

I refuse to subscribe to the ridiculous notion that a 12 year old can't comprehend the consequences of his or her actions. I was 12 not so long ago, and I knew when something was wrong and when it would affect others.

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 03:50 PM
I refuse to subscribe to the ridiculous notion that a 12 year old can't comprehend the consequences of his or her actions. I was 12 not so long ago, and I knew when something was wrong and when it would affect others.

Then why not let them drive? Or have sex? Or vote? Or own firearms? Or marry?

harloo
Oct 31st, 2007, 04:05 PM
Officials: Boy with matches started fire

By DAISY NGUYEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

SANTA CLARITA, Calif. - Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case.

The boy, whose name and age were not released, admitted to sparking the fire on Oct. 21, Los Angeles County sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht said Tuesday. Ferocious winds helped it quickly spread.

"He admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire," Hecht said in a statement.

The boy was released to his parents, and the case will be presented to the district attorney's office, Hecht said. It was not clear if he had been arrested or cited by detectives.

The fire began in an area near Agua Dulce and quickly spread. It was among 15 or so major wildfires that destroyed some 2,100 homes and blackened 809 square miles from Los Angeles to the Mexican border last week. Seven deaths were blamed directly on the fires, six evacuees died of natural causes and one person died of a fall.

Authorities arrested five people for arson during that period, but none have been linked to any of the major blazes.

All but four of the blazes are now fully contained. Firefighters on Wednesday continued to cut lines around the remaining fires and kept a close eye on the weather.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Deputy Maribel Rizo said prosecutors were yet to determine if the boy's parents would be held accountable for any financial losses caused by the fire. Rizo did not know when prosecutors would be given the case.
Forecasters have said moderate Santa Ana winds could pick up later in the week.

Investigators have blamed an arsonist for setting a destructive wildfire in Orange County that blackened 28,500 acres and destroyed 16 homes.
Authorities were seeking the driver of a white Ford F-150 pickup truck spotted in a canyon area around the time the fire broke out. They said they wanted to talk to the driver, but stopped short of calling the person a suspect.

Officials offered a $285,000 reward to anyone with information that will lead to an arrest and conviction.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Oct 31st, 2007, 05:52 PM
That family should definitely be held responsible

CooCooCachoo
Oct 31st, 2007, 06:40 PM
I hope he gets charged with murder.

Helen Lawson
Oct 31st, 2007, 07:10 PM
If the kid is black, he will be charged and go to jail. If he's white, it will be forgotten.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 07:14 PM
If the fire killed a loved one of mine I would probably not want the kid charged. Playing with matches is all too common and I don't believe in ruining a child's life for a moment of stupidity. If he intentionally set a fire with the intent of burning something down that would be arson, and I'd feel different.

SF

PointBlank
Oct 31st, 2007, 07:49 PM
I hope your children one day accidently cause an accident that hurts people. It would change your ridiculous minds.

Randy H
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:41 PM
Then why not let them drive? Or have sex? Or vote? Or own firearms? Or marry?

Just because you know the difference from something that is 'right' and something that is 'wrong' doesn't equate being considered mature enough to handle certain things like the above mentioned. Just like he clearly wasn't mature enough to be playing with matches. Not being mature doesn't mean you're not capable of understanding consequence behind action. I'm not saying throw the kid in prison for life, but surely he ought to face some pretty serious punishment within reasonable limit to his age.

jacobruiz
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:41 PM
Then why not let them drive? Or have sex? Or vote? Or own firearms? Or marry?


Exactly. He is a child and the fire, and the resulting damage was not intentional; it was an accident. The boy should be punished accordingly.

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:54 PM
Just because you know the difference from something that is 'right' and something that is 'wrong' doesn't equate being considered mature enough to handle certain things like the above mentioned. Just like he clearly wasn't mature enough to be playing with matches. Not being mature doesn't mean you're not capable of understanding consequence behind action. I'm not saying throw the kid in prison for life, but surely he ought to face some pretty serious punishment within reasonable limit to his age.

My point is this though- At what point did he become mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong?

Say he was 12- would all twelve year olds be tried as adults? What about 11 year olds? Ten year olds? Do we make an arbitrary cut off point? I would hate to have to tell a 12 year old kid who just accidentally killed his friend that instead of therapy and counseling, he gets jail time- because his birthday happened to be a week ago. And that's what that kind of system would do.

And if we decided on a case by case by case basis, it'd still be unfair. A judge can decide if a boy can be charged as an adult, but no one- no one- under the age of 18 can go be evaluated to see if he's "mature" enough to vote or drink.

That's inconsistency, in my eyes.

Kart
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:57 PM
If the fire killed a loved one of mine I would probably not want the kid charged. Playing with matches is all too common and I don't believe in ruining a child's life for a moment of stupidity. If he intentionally set a fire with the intent of burning something down that would be arson, and I'd feel different.

SF

I agree.

ico4498
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:12 PM
If the kid is black, he will be charged and go to jail. If he's white, it will be forgotten.

"The boy, whose name and age were not released, admitted to sparking the fire"

... make a credible guess

Well, if this is true, he should be charged with murder if this fire actually killed anyone. He should get a little bit of leniency for confessing, but still...

dunno how anyone can prescribe a charge without knowing age and intent. thats just crazy talk.

Randy H
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:16 PM
My point is this though- At what point did he become mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong?

Say he was 12- would all twelve year olds be tried as adults? What about 11 year olds? Ten year olds? Do we make an arbitrary cut off point? I would hate to have to tell a 12 year old kid who just accidentally killed his friend that instead of therapy and counseling, he gets jail time- because his birthday happened to be a week ago. And that's what that kind of system would do.

And if we decided on a case by case by case basis, it'd still be unfair. A judge can decide if a boy can be charged as an adult, but no one- no one- under the age of 18 can go be evaluated to see if he's "mature" enough to vote or drink.

That's inconsistency, in my eyes.

The thing is though, at 18 it's not suddenly legal to set fires, or kill people. Unlike driving, sex, voting, drinking. So I just don't think the comparison is fair, because we're comparing something universally illegal, to things that *are* legal among people old enough to be regarded as mature enough to handle the responsibilities that come with those actions/privileges.

As I said, I don't think the kid should be put in jail for life or something, especially if the incident was an accident. But if lives were lost, accident or not, the kid still has to face some level of accountability for his actions and deal with punishment that fits in accordance to his age. I'm sure he wasn't expecting that it would get out of control, but he still made a bad choice and should not be let off completely just because he's not an adult.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:21 PM
I say, make the kid attend the funeral of every person killed (if any were). Make him tour the remains of the 21 homes that were destroyed by this fire, and meet the people who lost them. As far as locking him up, or slapping him with a criminal record...I think that's pointless. There's no deterrent effect.

SF

Helen Lawson
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:28 PM
"The boy, whose name and age were not released, admitted to sparking the fire"

... make a credible guess



dunno how anyone can prescribe a charge without knowing age and intent. thats just crazy talk.

I've never known any black people who like to camp, so I'm going with the odds and saying it was a white kid.

Rtael
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:47 PM
I agree that there should be some kind of punishment for him, but really MURDER? Do you people even know what that means?

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:45 AM
Then why not let them drive? Or have sex? Or vote? Or own firearms? Or marry?

You're acting like it's up to me to make that decision. It's not.

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:51 AM
I agree that there should be some kind of punishment for him, but really MURDER? Do you people even know what that means?

Yes. If an adult started a fire and people were killed, he would be charged with murder. The only reason you're all ready to slap him on the wrist and let him go is because he's a boy.

It's amazing that people are willing to let people who are responsible for multiple deaths go free with no punishment simply because they're young. You say that you can't put an age on maturity, so then how can we really claim anyone is mature? I know a lot of immature 30 year olds. If they go on a shooting spree and kill a bunch of people should we let them off because they're retarded?

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:52 AM
If the fire killed a loved one of mine I would probably not want the kid charged. Playing with matches is all too common and I don't believe in ruining a child's life for a moment of stupidity. If he intentionally set a fire with the intent of burning something down that would be arson, and I'd feel different.

SF

I agree.

I'll believe that when it happens.

Scotso
Nov 1st, 2007, 12:55 AM
My point is this though- At what point did he become mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong?

Say he was 12- would all twelve year olds be tried as adults? What about 11 year olds? Ten year olds? Do we make an arbitrary cut off point? I would hate to have to tell a 12 year old kid who just accidentally killed his friend that instead of therapy and counseling, he gets jail time- because his birthday happened to be a week ago. And that's what that kind of system would do.

And if we decided on a case by case by case basis, it'd still be unfair. A judge can decide if a boy can be charged as an adult, but no one- no one- under the age of 18 can go be evaluated to see if he's "mature" enough to vote or drink.

That's inconsistency, in my eyes.

How can anyone over 18 be mature enough? You say that you can't say a 12 year old is, so how can you say a 19 year old is? *You* are setting completely arbitrary standards based on nothing but numbers.

And as for someone who accidentally killed his friend, shouldn't get jail time. But I doubt this kid accidentally started a fire.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Nov 1st, 2007, 01:11 AM
SANTA CLARITA, Calif. - Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case.

You mean "... boy with itchy fingers and raging hormones and fantasizes he's Johnny Storm / Pyro / one of the new members of "Heroes" series...." :tape:

Wonder how long he's grounded by Mum....

IceSkaTennisFan
Nov 1st, 2007, 01:54 AM
I don't believe in ruining a child's life for a moment of stupidity.
Yet he ruined a bunch of kids' lives with his stupidity :shrug: Extreme actions have extreme consequences. If you do drugs, you risk killing yourself. If you play with guns, you risk killing yourself and others. It's the same if you play with fire. I don't know if I think the boy should be charged, though. It's obviously his parents' responsibility.

If he intentionally set a fire with the intent of burning something down that would be arson, and I'd feel different.
Even if it was intentional, his age affects the way he's treated in the eyes of the law.

kittyking
Nov 1st, 2007, 02:50 AM
Punish the parents!

SvetaPleaseWin.
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:39 AM
twat

Apoleb
Nov 1st, 2007, 03:46 AM
Some disturbing stuff in this thread. If his intent was not to cause damage, then he should be punished, but charged with murder? You must be kidding me (but really I'm not surprised considering the sources). Unfortunately, stuff like this happens, especially when the circumstances are right. And I don't believe the parents should be punnished either. Parents aren't supposed to monitor their kids 24/7 (especially that in this case we don't know his age, but I'm assuming he's around 10). Well taught children can sometimes act irresponsibly.